Yesterday, I wrote that I’d “have to agree to disagree” with Richard Grenell’s expression of “pride in the president’s patently political statement” announcing his shift on gay marriage. Like two-thirds of Americans in a recent poll, I believe the Democrat flipped on gay marriage “mostly for political reasons“. Not even one quarter of Americans surveyed thought he made the decision because he believed it to be the right thing.

Perhaps had he better articulated his support for gay marriage, making the case why expanding the definition of this ancient institution would be a good thing both for the individuals who elect its benefits as well as for the society which recognizes same-sex couples as married.

Given the president’s failure to adequately articulate the reasons for his sudden change of heart “evolution” and the survey cited above, his statement which may cause numerous gay activists (nearly all previously favorably disposed to the Democrat) to feel good about themselves, will do little to further state recognition of same-sex unions.

Perhaps had the president, instead of announcing his switch in an interview with a friendly reporter, made a speech, putting forward ideas in favor of marriage similar to those offered by Jonathan Rauch, I might take him more seriously. But, given the alacrity of his campaign — and Democratic affiliates — to use his new position for political/fundraising purposes, it seems that his switch was more related to the needs of his campaign than to an appreciation of the social benefits of matrimony.

Yes, had considered putting that in, but I already said that and this time wanted to focus on his failure to make a clear case for gay marriage as I lay the groundwork for several related posts including one addressing the actual substance of his remarks.

I’ll appreciate you addressing your past criticism of Obama in the context of the North Carolina vote in light of the new increased support for gay marriage in Maryland.

Where it hurts the most is not the merits of the issue, but that people will see the re-positioning as patently political. Not just that, he looks out of touch, having announced his shift the day after North Carolina voters overwhelmingly rejected state recognition of same-sex marriage

Please explain how Obama’s announcement was an act of “hiding” in the context of the Maryland anti-marriage-quality referendum that hopes to change The Old Line State’s currently progressive marital laws. Or, is the Freedom State so liberal that it’s just more preaching to the choir?

And yet, Obama’s change to a pro gay marriage stance ,a href=”http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html”>seem to be the reason for a large positive shift in in the poling numbers in Maryland, especially among the African Americans polled. Of course, a poll is not an election, so don’t pop any corks if you’re a pro SSM advocate yet.

Thank you, Sonic. This is true. However, considering Dan hasn’t given Obama an inch on his pro-marriage-equality announcement, these poll numbers cast a shade on a small portion of Dan’s stance, that remains unacknowledged on his part.

Okay, Dan, please ignore that you wrote Obama “looks out of touch.” Others might say ballsy or brave. And, I’ll ignore that I even bothered bringing this to your attention, as you are steadfast in selective consistency. Which, now that I realize it, is another way of saying moral relativism (it goes without saying that Helio, et al, disagrees with my use of the term). Or, which is also just another way of saying not being able to admit one is mistaken. Or, as I like to observe, just another day on the right aisle of GP. Have a good night. God bless.

#9.. The proper saying is: “May God bless”. It is not your place to order God to do anything. Also, “Have a good night” should be: “I hope you have a good night”. It is not your place to order people to do anything.

Isn’t it amusing to watch the hypocrite Cinesnatch demand that other people follow rules that he himself has ignored time and time again?

Furthermore, Cinesnatch, Dan is consistent. Obama is a fraud, a desperate and idiotic politician who needs money and knew that even gullible gays like yourself were no longer buying his lies. By speaking empty words, he opens your purses even as he robs you blind.

Furthermore, Cinesnatch, Dan is consistent. Obama is a fraud, a desperate and idiotic politician who needs money and knew that even gullible gays like yourself were no longer buying his lies. By speaking empty words, he opens your purses even as he robs you blind.

I’m thinking Cine has not given any money to Obama, at least not at this point. And the point is not “why” Obama did what he did…. We all know the reasons. It’s what the short and long term effects of his “evolution” will be that are of interest here.

If Obama picks up 100% of the gay vote, how much will it offset his losses in the Catholic vote?

Since we don’t know how much of the Catholic vote Obama will lose, it’s difficult to tell. Though the Catholic vote has traditionally been left of the Vatican in the United States, so he may not lose a whole lot. You’re also not factoring in the fundraising advantage of this strategy, which is likely to be key in this very high spending election cycle.

And, I wonder, how many Democrat Hispanics and blacks will stay home or change their traditional voting pattern at the voting booth because of Obama’s gay initiative?

The early numbers seem to have blacks responding fairly positively to this announcement, probably due to the NAACP also getting on board with marriage equality. As for Hispanics, Obama is most likely betting that Republican rhetoric on immigration will more than offset any losses he has from his stance on same-sex marriage.

IThe man must have the same number crunchers working on the gay blitz who sent him out claiming to be the president with the lowest spending in sixty years.

Do you have a source to refute those spending numbers, or do you just not like them?

Gays neither want nor believe in “marriage equality”. If they did they’d be demanding the legal recognition of every relationship somebody might call a “marriage”. No, what gays want is to tear down traditional values to enhance their self-esteem, and to spit in the face of Bible-believing Christians for the same reason.